what might an entrepreneurial university constitute?digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/107944/1/what...

Proceedings of the 2013 EU-SPRI Forum Conference

Madrid 10-12 April 2013 ISBN 978-84-695-7408-9 ORAL PRESENTATION

Title

What might an entrepreneurial university constitute? Authors

Adela García-Aracil, INGENIO, CSIC-UPV, Universitat Politècnica de València, Edif. 8E, Camino

de Vera s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

Elena Castro-Martínez, INGENIO, CSIC-UPV, Universitat Politècnica de València, Edif. 8E, Camino de Vera s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

Fernando Jiménez-Sáez, INGENIO, CSIC-UPV, Universitat Politècnica de València, Edif. 8E, Camino de Vera s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

Mónica Arroyo-Vázquez, INGENIO, CSIC-UPV, Universitat Politècnica de València, Edif. 8E, Camino de Vera s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse those elements that characterize entrepreneurial universities in a

context of action-reaction such as changes in the environment which imply some type of

threat, as financial threats, the assumption of a new culture that question the traditional role

of the university as a somewhat conservative creator and transmitter of knowledge, the

establishment of new structures, etc. For that purpose, we present a review of some of the

indicator systems proposed by some OECD studies to characterize entrepreneurial universities.

After capturing the entrepreneurial character of universities, we propose what we consider to

be fundamental features of these kinds of institutions and associated them with indicators.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial universities; quantitative/qualitative indicators; market/non-market activities.

Proceedings of the 2013 EU-SPRI Forum Annual Conference

2

1. Introduction

Since the mid-1980s, the traditional role of the university as a somewhat conservative

creator and transmitter of knowledge has been questioned in the new globalized context

(Gornitzka, 1999; Gumport, 2000; Kogan and Hanney, 2000; Mok, 2005). Experts in

the field of higher education (HE) have emphasized the influential role of HE in the

construction of knowledge economies and democratic societies (World Bank, 2002; EC,

2003), and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) (universities and HEIs are used

interchangeably in this paper) are being forced to make important readjustments to

respond to society’s demands (EC, 2010; EU, 2011). Competitiveness, productivity,

quality and efficiency have become ‘buzz’ words in the context of the organization and

daily operations of universities, although they generally refer to the short term (Sporn,

1999). Now, the long term functioning of universities as independent institutions is

being questioned and universities are being subjected to political and economic

pressures (Sanyal, 1995; OECD, 1999, 2007; Uyarra, 2010).

HEIs’ responses to new societal demands are having implications for their structure

and administration (Gumport and Pusser, 1997; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; OECD,

1999). Responses differ according to the particular regulations and social circumstances

of the university (Graffikin and Perry, 2009). Nevertheless, their responses can classify

into three broad groups. The least disruptive change involves adoption of more

efficient internal procedures, by “readjusting the relationship between academics

and administrators”. This type of administrative structure requires the incorporation of

professional administrators and more and different responsibilities for academic

managers. Lindsay (1995) argues that such restructuring has strengthened universities as

institutions, but has provided a rival source of power to academic authority. Kogan

(1999) lists the major university management structure changes that such initiatives


3

entail: (i) increase in the total administration and management workload, at both

university and supra-university level; (ii) changes in the tasks and power balance

between the academics and the administration; (iii) a wider range of administrative tasks

for both academics and administrators: academia is being bureaucratized. Kogan (1999)

argues that there is a fundamental tension between these two parties, whose stances are

different: academic work is underpinned by a disinterested search for truth while

administrators regard public accountability as key to their activities. Most academic

staff in faculties and departments are not inclined to give priority to processes that do

not directly benefit their research or teaching.

A second type of response to these new conditions is the adoption of new

administrative methods, commonly termed “new management”, which implies

deeper cultural change, with the extension of the universities’ activities to new fields

related to the sale of services in the market and the introduction of new organizational

structures. Braun and Merrien (1999) describe the application of new management to

university systems as encompassing four areas: (i) a new corporate image; (ii)

strengthened university administration; (iii) new priorities in the financial relationship

between university and government; and (iv) orientation towards the customer.

Managerialism involves replacing one kind of organizational structure and culture with

another (Kogan et al., 2000). The traditional structure, based on bureaucracy and the

collegium, is replaced by a system and outlook imported from the private sector and the

marketplace (Teichler, 1996; Amaral et al., 2002). In most cases, the introduction of

organizational structures and behaviours borrowed from the business world has

weakened collegiate and participatory structures. These have been replaced by strong

management structures, a change that has been resisted by academics, though generally

without outright confrontation (Franzoni and Lissoni, 2009). Though this may add a


4

new dimension to the way universities work, it raises a number of problems that are not

easy to resolve. From the standpoint of many departments and university units, the

benefits to be derived from the new concept of universities as service providers are by

no means clear (Fitzsimons, 2004; Casani and Esparrells, 2009). This is particularly true

in the case of departments and units that are not linked to technology or that may have

difficulty in operating within a competitive environment. Internal conflict may ensue,

and require a readjustment to the way that university units are linked, in order to

maintain cohesion. There is also a risk that universities will abandon some of their

traditional functions whose results are long term, in favour of work that is immediately

profitable in economic terms (Molas et al., 2002).

Finally, the most extreme response to the new context is what Clark (1998) calls

“entrepreneurial universities”; this implies global changes in the culture, organization

and operational forms and relationships of the universities in response to the pressures

from the environment in which they operate. These changes are the basis for a typology

of measures taken by universities to improve their institutional opportunities and how

they are managed. Although the universities in Clark’s case study were under different

kinds of pressure from the environments in which they worked, their responses were

characterized by a number of common threads such as: universities cease to be

privileged institutions and lose their monopoly to other organizations and companies

that can undertake the same activities and in a more efficient way. As a result, they are

in competition in bidding for public and private funds. This assumes the imposition of a

new market or quasi-market system in which the ability of universities to compete

becomes in vital for their survival (Michael and Holdawya, 1992; Levin, 1998; Van

Vught, 2000). Furthermore, it should remembered that one of the key factors

influencing developments in the public HE system is the steady decline in the share of


5

operating support provided by state governments (Catanzaro and Arnold, 1989). This

steady but inexorable trend has led to a spate of proposals that are changing the

relationships between states and their public institutions, and generally entailing greater

freedom from state regulation and autonomy to organize tuition without state control

(Breneman, 2004; Gulbrandsen and Slipersaeter, 2007). In the extreme, this policy shift

is referred to as privatization, which exaggerates the dimension of the change, but

accurately reflects the direction. Public universities are also being driven to compete for

external research grants and contracts, and private gifts and endowments (Ryan, 1989;

Molas et al., 2002), what Slaughter and Leslie (1997) coined as academic capitalism.

In this context, in this paper we analyse those elements that characterize

entrepreneurial universities in a context of action-reaction, and to suggest a set of

indicators to enable the tracking and management of entrepreneurial university

activities. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 focuses our concern about the

meaning of entrepreneurial university; Section 3 provides a better understanding of the

elements that characterize entrepreneurial university; in Section 4, we propose a set of

indicators associated to be fundamental features of these kinds of institutions; finally,

Section 5 presents the discussion and conclusions.

2. What does entrepreneurial university mean?

In the literature there are more than ten definitions that have been identified for

entrepreneurial universities (see Figure 1), which show the effort to explain the meaning

of this phenomenon, but the evidence reveals that there is not a consensus for using one

of them consistently.


6

Figure 1. Main Definitions of Entrepreneurial University Year Author Definition

1983 Etzkowitz Universities that are considering new sources of funds like patents, research under by

contracts and entry into a partnership with a private enterprise

1995

Chrisman,

Hynes and

Fraser

The entrepreneurial university involves the creation of new business ventures by

university professors, technicians, or students

1995 Dill

University technology transfer is defined as formal efforts to capitalize upon university

research by bringing research outcomes to fruition as commercial ventures. Formal efforts

are in turn defined as organizational units with explicit responsibility for promoting

technology transfer

1998 Clark

An entrepreneurial university, on its own, seeks to innovate in how it goes to business. It

seeks to work out a substantial shift in organizational character so as to arrive at a more

promising posture for the future. Entrepreneurial universities seek to become “stand-up”

universities that are significant actors in their own terms.

1998 Röpke

An entrepreneurial university can mean three things: the university itself, as an

organization becomes entrepreneurial; the member of the university are turning

themselves somehow into entrepreneurs; and the interaction of the university with the

environment.

1999 Subotzky

The entrepreneurial university is characterized by close university-business partnerships,

by greater faculty responsibility for accessing external sources of funding, and by a

managerial ethos in institutional governance, leadership and planning.

2002 Kirby

As at the heart of any entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurial universities have the ability

to innovate, recognize and create opportunities, work in teams, take risks and respond to

challenges.

2003 Etzkowitz

Just as the university trains individual students and sends them out into the world, the

entrepreneurial university is a natural incubator, providing support structures for teachers

and students to initiative new ventures: intellectual, commercial and conjoint.

2003

Jacob,

Lundqvist and

Hellsmark

An entrepreneurial university is based both commercialization (customs made further

education courses, consultancy services and extension activities) and commoditization

(patents, licensing or student owned star-ups.

2003 Williams ….is nothing more than a seller of services in the knowledge industry….

2008 Shattock

Entrepreneurialism is a reflection both of institutional adaptiveness to a changing

environment and of the capacity of universities to produce innovation through research

and new ideas.

Source: Own elaboration for Guerrero Cano (2007) adaptation.

These definitions, outlined in Figure 1, provide evidence about some elements that

characterize an entrepreneurial universities, for example: the organizational adaptation

to environmental changes (Clark, 1998), the managerial and governance distinctiveness

(Subotzky, 1999), the new responsibilities of their members (Etzkowitz, 1983), the new

activities oriented to the development of an entrepreneurial culture at all levels (Clark,

1998; Kirby, 2002; Etzkowitz, 2003), the contribution to economic development with

the creation of new ventures (Chrisman, et al. 1995; Röpke, 1998) or commercialization

of the research production (Dill, 1995; Jacob, et al. 2003), etc. Additionally, apart from

new business ventures, other innovative activities such as developing new products,

services, technologies, administrative techniques, strategies and competitive postures


7

are presented (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). In this sense, entrepreneurialism in

universities is a reflection both of institutional adaptiveness to a changing environment

and of the capacity of universities to produce innovation through research and new ideas

(Shattock, 2008). Thus, according to these authors, the entrepreneurial university can be

understood as a flexible organization that interacts with its social and economic

environment adapting itself to the changes and looks for additional sources of funds for

research, teaching, technology transfer, and commercialization, etc.

In this context, Etzkowitz (1998, 2003, 2004) argued that the actual university

presents the effects of the second academic revolution and for this reason an

entrepreneurial university needs to fulfill three missions simultaneously: (i) teaching

mission defined as the preservation and dissemination of knowledge; (ii) research

mission considerate as a legitimate function of the university; and (iii) entrepreneurial

mission produced by the collapse of the inevitable production of research results with

practical implications and the external demand of greater utility from public funding.

Moreover, Schulte (2004) mentioned that the entrepreneurial university’s goals are

oriented: (i) to provide the society a graduate who must become not only a job-seeker

but also above all a job-creator, (ii) not only to publications but should be the sources of

innovations in the economy and society, and the starting point for the development of

business ideas for new companies, and (iii) to cope with difficulties that may arise

during the growth periods of new companies.

Then, it could be said that the literature reflects the lack of a common description of

the entrepreneurial university phenomenon. For this reason, in this paper the

approximations proposed by Clark (1998), Kirby (2002), Etzkowitz (2003) and

Shattock (2008) are adopted. Hence the definition of an entrepreneurial university is a

university that have the ability to innovate, recognize and create opportunities, work in


8

teams, take risks and respond to challenges, and which seeks to work out a substantial

shift in organizational character to arrive at a more promising posture for the future. In

other words, an entrepreneurial university can mean three things: (i) the university itself,

as an organization, becomes entrepreneurial; (ii) the members of the university –

academic and non-academic staff, students – are turning themselves somehow into

entrepreneurs; (iii) the interaction of the university with the environment, the structural

coupling between university and region, follows entrepreneurial patterns. Thus, in the

next section, we consider adequately to explain which factors underpin the notion of an

entrepreneurial university.

3. Factors which underpin the notion of an entrepreneurial university

Some theoretical models of entrepreneurial universities have been identified and, in

each one, there are elements associated with formal and informal factors, following the

idea of North (1990 and 2005) that suggests three formal factors: governance structure,

organizational structure and support; and two informal factors: rewards and culture. For

instance, Clark (1998) suggested the first model examining five European universities.

He identified that, for a university to become entrepreneurial, it has to follows five

pathways during its institutional transformation. The first three are related with formal

factors (a strengthened steering core, an expanded developmental periphery, and a

diversified funding base), and two informal factors (an integrated entrepreneurial

culture and a stimulated academic heartland).

Sporn’s (2001) model analyzes HEIs in order to connect the university structure and

the environmental forces through management, governance and leadership. She

concluded that there are six formal factors; missions and goals, the structure, the

management, governance and leadership, one informal factor; organizational culture,

and one moderator; the environment that influence the adaptation of higher education


9

and the university structure. The model proposed by Etzkowitz (2004) was integrated

by a set of five inter-related propositions derived from his analysis of entrepreneurial

academic development in the USA, Europe and Latin America. This is a guideline for

institutional renovation that includes the following formal factors: capitalization of

knowledge, interdependence with the industry and government, other institutional

spheres, hybrid organizational forms and renovation in time.

Kirby (2006) proposed seven strategic actions intended to promote an enterprise

culture in universities. The factors that have been identified as formal are strategic

actions related with the organization, endorsement, incorporation, implementation and

communication. The factors identified as informal are related to promotion, recognition

and reward, and endorsement. Shattock (2008) proposed that entrepreneurialism,

through the generation of new and innovative activities, makes a distinctive contribution

to the knowledge society. The factors identified as formal are: a diversified income base

and institutional competitiveness which would be forcing houses for new ideas and new

programmes.

In addition, a lot of empirical studies have emerged about entrepreneurial

universities. The main considerations are related with objectives, theoretical

frameworks, methodology and most important findings about the entrepreneurial

university. The objectives of these studies were focused to explain entrepreneurial

activities, entrepreneurial vision, transformation process, strategies, structural changes

and alliances with other institutions. The theoretical frameworks utilized were the

academic entrepreneurship approach; academic capitalism approach, and the theoretical

model proposed by Clark in 1998. The methodology used was case study approach that

reveals the embryonic nature of the topic, and the lack of a robust theoretical framework

to understand it. The data collection was integrated by interviews, observation,


10

secondary data, and questionnaires. Thus, according to Van Vught (2000), Klosfen and

Jones-Evans (2000), Jacob et al. (2003), and Zhao (2004) an Entrepreneurial University

could be analyzed following the academic entrepreneurship activities. Other

approximations are the publication in mainstream journals (Bernasconi, 2005), and the

diversification of the funding base using typologies of universities by income streams:

pure entrepreneur, semi-entrepreneur and public funds (De Zilwa, 2005). In the Spanish

context, there are a few studies that have investigated formal factors such as the

organization and governance structure related with the innovation (Villarreal, 2001), the

new university styles (Mora, 2001), and tendencies of European universities towards

quasimarkets (Agasisti and Catalano, 2006). Finally, Ruiz et al. (2004) suggested a

typology of universities based on the entrepreneurial initiatives.

There has been very less research about entrepreneurial university that studied the

informal factors. The main objective of those investigations was to analyze the

influence of cultural factors on the transformation process. The theoretical approaches

used were entrepreneurial scholarship and strategy. The methodology and data

collection were similar to formal factors utilizing case study and multiple data sources.

The main contributions were the critical factors during the adaptation process, and the

university community perception. In Spain, the informal factors have been focused on

entrepreneurial intention of university students (Veciana, et al. 2005; Toledano, 2006;

Urbano, 2006; Liñán and Chen, 2006; Guerrero et al., 2008).

In summary, these empirical studies have contributed to the literature with some

important findings. However, there are gaps identified that need to be filled for a better

understanding of the university entrepreneurial phenomenon. For example, the

requirements and barriers to make universities more entrepreneurial, and the most


11

appropriate criteria to measure an entrepreneurial university. In the next section, we

propose some indicators to measure entrepreneurial universities.

4. Indicators to measure entrepreneurial universities

To capture the entrepreneurial character of universities, we have defined what we

consider to be fundamental features of these kinds of institutions and associated them

with indicators.

Changes in the demand are characterized by being radical and rapid. Such changes

can include diversification in the fields of study, new specialities, different objectives

that are in line with sponsoring bodies (for instance, government or companies may

request particular directions in applied research or technology transfer, or new teaching

programmes to meet demands for human capital to improve economic development).

The indicators we propose should assess to what extent courses or degrees are aligned

to societal demands and requirements (see Table 1):

Table 1. Demand indicators and their evolution Item Description: Growth of….(t / t-n) Characteristic Type

1 Freshman applicants in all higher

education system

General increase of the demand Environment

2 Freshman applicants by university Evolution of the demand by university Teaching

3 Students accepted according their

first-choice preference

Evolution of the demand by university Teaching

4 Number of degrees offer Diversification of the demand Teaching

5 Number of students enrolled by

number of degrees

Diversification of the demand Teaching

6 Number of post-graduates in all higher

education system

General increase of the demand Environment

7 Number of post-graduates by

university

Evolution of the demand by university Teaching

Source: Own elaboration

The proportions of freshman and transfer applicants accepted are basic indicators of

institutional selectivity. Rates of acceptance are influenced by a wide range of factors,

both internal and extrinsic to the institutions. They may signify increase or decrease in

demand from students or potential students resulting from changes in the local

population of university-aged students or changes in admission requirements.


12

In terms of student demand, in most European countries, the population of

traditional university-age students has declined, and the fastest growing cohort is aged

25 years and older. As a result, many universities are offering more part-time degrees to

accommodate the demand from adults who are already employed. Part-time students

affect an institution in a variety of ways. Often, services need to be tailored to non-

resident students who have not been involved in formal education for some time. These

individuals may be more interested in career-oriented programmes than their younger,

full-time counterparts; demand for many of the traditional facilities and services such as

libraries and halls of residence may be different and the more traditional student

activities, such as cultural and academic organizations may decline as part-time

enrolment increases.

With respect to admissions requirements, all institutions have mission statements,

strategies, and standards that define the number and type of students that are acceptable.

Demand for the programmes being offered may increase or may fall off and, in the

public sector, admission rates may be affected by enrolment caps resulting from reduced

funding. Retention rates of upper class students affect the number of “slots” available to

new students, and residential and other space on campus may become scarce or in

excess. Allowing more foreign students can improve enrolment numbers, enhance the

diversity of the student body, and absorb significant resources for language instruction,

counselling and pastoral care services.

Moreover, the admissions yield is the proportion of accepted applicants who

matriculate. Yield is a function of a variety of competing factors that influence potential

students’ choices of institutions. These include the relative attractiveness of the

institution compared with say a private institution, in terms of programmes provided,

location, campus facilities, and extracurricular training; the number of other institutions


13

to which applicants apply and are accepted; and the total net cost of attending, taking

into account availability of financial aid.

On the other hand, the proportion of students who are awarded a degree is a measure

of student progress and thus of an institutions productivity. Degree rates can be affected

by many factors, including students’ choices. For example, part-time students may take

longer to complete their degree than full time students. Recently, there has been concern

about the time being taken to degree completion due to the inability of some institutions

to offer a sufficient number of courses to satisfy demand. Some universities are

beginning to look at ways to improve “learner productivity” by making changes to their

admissions requirements. The goal is to enable students to complete their degrees in a

shorter time and at a lower cost.

Changes in demand are often accompanied by changes in the environment. These

include the appearance of private initiatives in both teaching and research, and the

development of new ICTs, all of which influence how teaching and research are carried

out. They also have an effect on the universities’ revenue structures. It is generally

believed that a university whose revenue is derived from several independent sources

will enjoy greater flexibility and stability. By contrast, reliance on one or a very few

sources, such as tuition or government grants, will likely constrain the breadth of

activities and result in less security. Where a university is dependent on a single revenue

source that is not completely reliable, it should seek greater funding diversity and make

efforts to develop new or enhanced sources of revenue.

On the other hand, fields of study have become increasingly important for labour

market outcomes and lifestyle differences, because of the decreasing variation in

educational levels (De Graaf, 1986; García-Aracil, 2008). The expansion of education

has not only raised the average educational level and reduced its variance (Hauser and


14

Featherman, 1976), but it has also resulted in a larger number of people trained in

specialist fields. However, the distribution of job opportunities for higher education

graduates is not homogeneous across fields of study.

It is clear that the degree field is a relevant part of the credentials that graduates

bring to the labour market and, consequently, it enables some screening in the allocation

of jobs to HE graduates. Employers prefer to hire graduates whose expertise fits the

requirements of the job. For certain occupations it is a legal requirement for the

postholder to have a certain qualification. For instance, a degree in Medical Sciences is

required to practise as a physician, graduation from a law school is required in order to

practise as an attorney, and so on. The consequence is that the labour market for

graduates is to some extent segmented by the field of graduation. This field-related

segmentation is confirmed by indicators such as labour force participation rates,

unemployment rates, and the proportion of temporary labour contracts, which does vary

widely among different fields of study (García-Aracil, 2008). Therefore, it would be

worthwhile for future research to explore the relevance of field of study to the labour

market and to social inequality.

Taking account of all these characteristics, we propose the following indicators for

changes in the environment (see Table 2):

Table 2. Indicators for changes in the environment Item Description Characteristic Type

8 Number of higher education institutions

set up (public versus private)

New higher education institutions Environment

9 Ratio of students enrolled in public

higher education institutions and private

ones

New higher education institutions Environment

10 Distribution of students by field of

study.

Changes in labour market

requirements

Environment

11 Percentage of funds from contracts in

total funds

Financial changes Funding /

Transfer

12 Percentage of tuition fees in total funds Financial changes Funding /

Teaching

13 Percentage of funds tied to objectives in

total public funds

New requirement tied to public

funding

Funding



15

In addition, we should consider the restrictions that HE systems face in responding

to changes in demand. We consider three different types of restrictions: financial,

normative and institutional. Financial restrictions refer to the reduction or freezing of

available public funds for HEIs (see Table 3). The most radical is a straight reduction in

the available budgetary funds. Funds can also be restricted as a result of conditions

attached to their use for special purposes or new activities. Both these actions result in

less flexibility for the HEIs. The second type of restriction is normative. In most

countries normative limitations have decreased, and the autonomy of universities has

increased. However, in some countries the degree of government intervention has

increased and is limiting the possibilities for universities to respond to new demands.

The third type of restriction is institutional. These restrictions are not related to laws; in

most cases they are the result of the status-quo that has come to be accepted by the

institution. Aspects such as excessive bureaucracy, government requirements and

academic individualism associated with freedom in teaching, reduce the flexibility of

universities and affect the introduction of changes.

Table 3. Indicators related to restrictions Item Description Characteristic Type

14 Percentage of public funds in total funds Decrease of public funds Funding

15 Percentage of funds related to results Public control on results Funding

16 Percentage of budget that is unrestricted Autonomy in management Management


In line with the new situation in Clark’s (1998) entrepreneurial universities, we

propose indicators related to: a strong central management unit or a strengthened

steering core; the creation of a new developmental periphery; an increase in the number

of funding sources; an academic structure prepared to accept and, indeed, initiate

change; and an entrepreneurial culture.

HEIs with a strengthened steering core possess a heightened autonomy. These

institutions can be centralized, decentralized or some kind of combination. The key to a


16

strengthened steering core lies in adaptability combined with an administrative ability in

the institution to fuse together new managerial values and traditional academic values

such that all levels of the institution work towards an improved and more efficient

academic culture. The management of HE involves three distinct features: governance,

leadership and management. Governance refers to the structure and processes of

decision-making. Leadership implies the role of senior executives in taking

responsibility for the overall institution. Management refers to the operational activity

of running the institution, i.e. the structures and processes involved in decision making,

implementation and control.

Furthermore, the proportion of employees who are classified as executive,

administrative or managerial can be a function of the institution’s emphasis on

administration, oversight, and other professional activities, versus those functions that

typically are performed by faculty members. A high proportion of professional and

managerial staff can also indicate that an institution has some complexities that require

more management. On the other hand, the proportion of a university’s employees who

are faculty reflects the institution’s academic focus, as well as its choices about the

division of labour between faculty and staff. Over the past few decades, institutions

have been increasing their numbers of professional staff in areas such as admissions,

student services, information technology and consultancy, areas that previously were

served by faculty. In research intensive institutions, other technical and administrative

positions have been incorporated to support faculty work. This is reflected in the

indicators presented in Table 4.


17

Table 4. A strengthened steering core Item Description Characteristic Type

17 Implementation of a strategic plan Adaptation to the new environment

conditions

Management

18 Existence of planning and control

departments

New ways of management and

governance

Management

19 Percentage of administrative staff in

total staff

New ways of management and

government

Staff

20 Change of skilled jobs among

administrative staff

Good and appropriate qualification Staff

21 Implementation of quality plans Internal management improvements Management

22 Specific groups or experts to fund

raise

Diversifying funding sources Funding


HEIs with expanded developmental peripheries cross academic-industry

boundaries to form mutually beneficial relationships. Through an entrepreneurial

periphery, linkages with outside organizations and groups at the borders of institutions

help to break down the traditional boundaries. The resulting partnerships enable a

variety of functions such as knowledge transfer, industry exchanges, intellectual

property development, continuing education, and fundraising and alumni activities

(Clark, 1998). In order for these institutions to preserve their educational integrity,

Clark maintains that outreach in the context of a collective institutional capacity to

make choices based on educational values is essential. We propose indicators that

comprise of a range of activities undertaken by universities, their departments, staff

members and students to set up and manage new firms, organizations, foundations and

so on, either to exploit existing university capabilities or to carry out new research (see

indicators in Table 5). These activities can include the financing of new firms from

university resources (spin-offs and commercial arms), thereby increasing academics’

awareness of entrepreneurial opportunities and offering them support to start their own

companies (start-ups), and the provision of physical space and expert financial, legal

and marketing support (incubators and science parks).


18

Table 5. Creating an expanded developmental periphery Item Description Characteristic Type

23 Number of institutes by activity sector Developing institutes related to regional

activity

Research

24 Number of firms, organizations,

foundations set up in the last years.

Developing other organizations related

to regional activity

Transfer

25 Personnel registered in institutes in

total personnel

Staff exchanges and secondments Staff

26 Personnel registered in firms,

organizations and foundations in total

personnel

Staff exchanges and secondments Staff

27 Returns provided by institutes in total

university funds

Economic importance of activities

performed by the periphery

Funding /

Transfer

28 Returns provided by firms,

organizations and foundations in total

university funds

Economic importance of activities

performed by the periphery

Funding /

Transfer


HEIs with a diversified funding base receive revenue from government, industry,

and private sources. If one funding source is reduced, the effects are felt less intensely.

For this characteristic, we propose the following indicators (see Table 6):

Table 6. A diversified funding base Item Description Characteristic Type

29 Changes in the structure of funding

sources

Changes in the financial structure Funding

30 Percentage of private funds in total

funds

Increase of non-public sources of

funding

Funding

31 Total funds from new funding sources Recent initiatives to find additional

funds

Funding

32 Percentage of funds from knowledge

transfer in total private funds

Increased funds related to knowledge

transfer

Funding /

Transfer


A stimulated academic heartland refers to the core academic functions of the

institution. The academic units (the heartland of every university) need to be integrated,

and respected for their central role as providers of teaching and research. Traditional

values are most deeply rooted in academic departments (Clark, 1998). In order for the

institution to fully engage in the entrepreneurial process, every department must accept

and engage in the process. A stimulated academic heartland maintains the university’s

integral traditional values and practices while simultaneously integrating new

managerial and market-related practices. Table 7 presents the indicators proposed.


19

Table 7. A stimulated academic heartland Item Description Characteristic Type

33 Number of academic staff working in

entrepreneurial activities in total academic

staff

Importance of entrepreneurial

activities

Transfer

34 Total returns from contracts, projects, patents

by academic departments


activities

Research /

Transfer

35 Implementation of incentives related to

entrepreneurial activities


activities

Management /

Funding


An integrated entrepreneurial culture combines the first four elements to create a

culture that embraces change and sustains the fundamental values of the institution.

While a spirit of innovation and enterprise may begin with one department, an

entrepreneurial institution facilitates the development of a culture that embraces these

ideas on an institutional level. New belief systems need to be worked out between

managerial groups and academics. A culture that supports change will provide a base

for the entrepreneurial university. It may have small beginnings but should develop into

a firm set of beliefs relating to new directions for the institution. The institutional

perspective must extend beyond individual interests and act to transform the whole

university. In this context, we propose the following indicators (see Table 8).

Table 8. An integrated entrepreneurial culture

Item Description Characteristic Type

36 Implementation and diffusion of corporate

programmes

Foundation of corporate entities Management

37 Hiring in of staff to reinforce management

and external relations

Spreading entrepreneurial culture Staff

38 Implementation of entrepreneurial culture

in study programmes

Spreading entrepreneurial culture Teaching

39 Percentage of internal funds allocated by

objectives

Incentives for entrepreneurial

activities

Funding


Finally, the adoption of an entrepreneurial culture in conjunction with the

characteristics described above implies the introduction of structural measures, which

will affect the HEIs operations. Table 9 proposes indicators related to this issue.


20

Table 9. Structural changes due to the adoption of entrepreneurial culture. Item Description Characteristic Type

40 Flexible scheduling for academic staff Rotation between teaching and

innovative activities

Teaching

41 Percentage of expenditure by sub-

central units in total university

expenditure

Autonomy of sub-central units to

manage resources

Funding

42 Implementation of rewards related to

entrepreneurial activities

Incentives for maintaining anan

entrepreneurial culture

Staff

43 Implementation of quality plans Maintaining a quality culture Management

44 Assessment of quality plans Maintaining a quality culture Management


In order to relate our proposed 44 indicators to universities’ actual operations, we

classify them into groups. Classification of indicators is frequently based on what is

understood as the university productive process. Such classifications differentiate

between indicators of inputs, activity, results (outputs) and impact (outcome). One of

the flaws in this is that it tries to impose on university institutions a structure that is

useful used to analyse the efficiency or the effectiveness of private firms, but for

institutions whose objectives are not so clear cut or whose processes are not

standardized, and whose funding systems are not market based, it is not really

appropriate.

In our opinion, it is more useful to impose a classification that is related to effect of

these indicators on the operation of HEIs. Therefore, we classify our indicators based on

fields of performance, affecting the three main functions of teaching, research and

knowledge transfer, and which take account of the three activities related to innovative

transformation: personnel, financial and management. We include a seventh element to

capture those indicators related to changes in the environment (see Table 10).


21

Table 10. Classification of the indicators in connection with the university

performance Type of indicator Number

Environment (external indicators) 5

Teaching 8

Research 2

Knowledge transfer 7

Staff 6

Funding 15

Management and government 8


Although the results of applying a classification of this type are not clear cut, they

demonstrate that to define the entrepreneurial universities implies the use of a number

of indicators related to financing because they constitute one of the basic axes for

building the entrepreneurial university. As Davies (2001) points out, a university can be

flexible in responding to changes in the environment, but this does not make it an

entrepreneurial university. This requires a degree of financial understanding, i.e., the

capacity to commercialize its products and to generate a surplus that can be used to

reduce deficits in other areas, or compensate for in the public funding.

Finally, it should be recognized that the definition of entrepreneurial universities

places more emphasis on the role of administrative tasks, including personnel

management, funding and governance, than the traditional functions of teaching or

research. Thus, the concept of the entrepreneurial university refers to organizational,

strategic, quality changes, and changes to current and future institutional projections.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The context in which universities operate has changed substantially since the 1980s. In

the case of European universities, central governments have been the main sources of

financing, and have become more and more interested in teaching demonstrated by the

orientation of public service and education policies which imply a universalitation of

the HE system to respond the labour market and social demands. Governments are also


22

becoming more interested in research activities and their contribution to society and in

the productivity of the economy. In addition, there is more emphasis on activities

related to the projection of culture and civic education.

Thus, the context is changing. The boundary between public and private

responsibilities, and who should finance what, is changing. European governments have

had increasing budgetary demands during the last decades some of which are due to the

increasing cost of providing and maintaining good public services. This has led to a new

environment of (i) deregulation that gives more autonomy to universities, and (ii) more

restricted finance. In this new context, it is important to determine on what aspects

universities can compete and how these characteristics can be diverted to

entrepreneurial activities.

In this paper, we have tried to characterize entrepreneurial universities within a

frame of action-reaction and to suggest a set of indicators that enable the tracking and

management of entrepreneurial activities. However, given the multiple objectives of HE

and the variety of principals and stakeholders involved, the choice of which indicators

should be adopted is contentious. We suggest a subset of indicators that could be used

to set the foundations for a measurement system, and try to justify our selection.

This type of study is not without its difficulties. Firstly, numerous indicators in

connection with HE have been proposed - some designed to measure aspects that do not

fit with the reality. Our methodology tries to define a series of realistic characteristics,

relating to the entrepreneurial university, and to build a series of indicators that are

directly related to these characteristics.

Another difficult is related to the heterogeneity of the indicators. Although there is a

tendency to identify indicators with numeric relationships, the important issue is what

constitutes an indicator. In Kells’ definition (1994), indicators are factual information or


23

opinion gathered from the data available or “ex novo”, on the operation of the

organizations or their constituent units and various purposes (control, support to the

decisions, comparison, evaluation or improvements). Thus, indicators are often derived

from the application of formulas or opinions to infer the existence or not of some of the

defined characteristics.

It should also be pointed out that there is a degree of complexity in such a system of

characteristics. The use of an indicator as a synthetic measure vanishes when it is

applied to a complex entity such as a public university. A measurement system that

adopts a holistic approach, and takes account of the variety of the relationships between

universities and the rest of the society is needed.

On the other hand, we realize that the definition of an entrepreneurial university puts

great weight on those indicators related to funding, management of personnel and

governance, indicating that the concept of entrepreneurial university refers, mainly, to

organizational and strategic quality changes.

Thus, there are no magic bullets in indicators of entrepreneurial activities. A variety

of indicators is needed. Each will, by itself, be incomplete and its interpretation will be

open to question; however, taken together, the result can be a powerful measurement

system.

The suggestions in this paper can be considered only as preliminary, for instance

many of the indicators proposed are new and will need to be precisely defined in an

operational manner. A new conceptual and extended framework will be necessary that

focuses on the wide range of interactions that bind universities to the rest of the society.

Further analysis should be engaged in studying whether measures of entrepreneurial

university activities can be usefully incorporates into more specific analyses of

performance indicators relating to the work of HEIs. To solve these problems is


24

fundamental both to the rationale for policy, and for the relevance and practical use of

indicators. For that reason it is useful to discuss what indicators are the best ones since

give rise to consensus among policy-makers and university community members. In this

sense, it is expected that there will be a move towards greater coherence among quality

systems in the coming decades.

References

Agasisti, T. and Catalano, G. (2006). Governance models of university systems—

towards quasimarkets?. Tendencies and perspectives: A European comparison.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 245–262.

Amaral, A., Jones, G.A and Karseth, B. (2002). Governing Higher Education: National

Perspectives on Institutional Governance, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The

Netherlands.

Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-

cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 495–527.

Bernasconi, A. (2005). University Entrepreneurship in a Developing Country: The Case

of the P. Universidad Catolica de Chile, 1985-2000. Higher Education, 50(2), 247-

274.

Braun, D. and Merrien, F.X. (1999) Governance of universities and modernisation of

the state. Analytical aspects. In Braun, D. and Merrien, F. (eds): Towards a New

Model of Governance for Universities? A Comparative View. Jessica Kingsley Pub.,

London, 28-32.

Breneman, D.W. (2004) Are the States and Public Higher Education Striking a New

Bargain? Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards.


25

Casani, F. and Pérez Esparells, C. (2009). La responsabilidad social en las universidades

públicas españolas: Vectores de cambio en la gobernanza, Investigaciones de

Economía de la Educación, 4, 127-137.

Catanzaro, J.L. and Arnold, A.D. (1989) Editors' notes, in Catanzaro, J.L., Arnold, A.D.

(eds.) Alternative funding sources. New directions for community colleges, 68, San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 1-4.

Chrisman, J., Hynes, T. and Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty Entrepreneurship and Economic

development: The Case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing,

10, 267-81.

Clark, B.R. (1998). The entrepreneurial university demand and response. Tertiary

Education Management, 4(1), 5-15.

Davies, J. L. (2001). The emergence of entrepreneurial cultures in European

universities. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 25-43.

De Graaf, P.M. (1986). The impact of financial and cultural resources on educational

attainment in the Netherlands. Sociology of Education, 59, 237-246.

De Zilwa, D. (2005). Using Entrepreneurial Activities as a means of survival:

Investigating the processes used by Australian Universities to diversify their revenue

streams. Higher Education, 50(3), 387-411.

Dill, D. (1995). University-industry entrepreneurship: the organization and management

of American university technology transfer units. Higher Education, 29, 369-384.

EC, European Commission, (2003). The Role of Universities in the Europe of

Knowledge, Communication from the Commission, COM (2003) final.

EC, European Commission, (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth. COM (2010) 2020 of 3.3.2010.


26

Etzkowitz, H. (1983).Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in

American Academic Science. Minerva, 21(2-3), 198-233.

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the

new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823–833

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as 'quasi firms': the invention of the

entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109-21.

Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the Entrepreneurial University. International

Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1, 64-77.

EU, (2011). Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide, European

Union Regional Policy, September 2011.

Fitzsimons, M. (2004). Managerialism and the university. New Zealand Journal of

Tertiary Education Policy, 1, 1-3.

Franzoni, Ch. and Lissoni, F. (2009). Academic entrepreneurs: Critical issues and

lessons for Europe. In Varga, A. (ed.) Universities, Knowledge Transfer and

Regional Development, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers, pp. 163-190.

García-Aracil, A. and Van der Velden, R. (2008). Competencies for young European

higher education graduates: Labor market mismatches and their payoffs. Higher

Education, 55(2), 219-239.

Gornitzka, A. (1999). Governmental policies and organisational change in higher

education. Higher Education, 38(1), 5-31.

Graffikin, F. and Perry, D. C. (2009). Discourses and Strategic Visions: The U.S.

Research University as an Institutional Manifestation of Neoliberalism in a Global

Era. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 115-144.


27

Guerrero Cano, M. (2007). Entrepreneurial Universities: The Case of Autonomous

University of Barcelona. Research Work, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Barcelona.

Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., and Urbano, D. (2008). The impact of desirability and

feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model. International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 35-50.

Gulbrandsen, M. and Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial

university model. In Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C. (eds.), Universities and strategic

knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe. Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar.

Gumport, P.J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional

imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67-91.

Gumport, P.J. and Pusser, B. (1997). Restructuring the academic environment. In

Peterson, M.V., Dill, D.D. and Mets, L.A. (eds.) Planning and Management for a

Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions,

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hauser, R.M. and Featherman, D.L. (1976). Equality of schooling: Trends and

prospects. Sociology of Education, 49, 99-120.

Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. and Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in

the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology.

Research Policy, 32(9), 1555-1569.

Kells, J. (1994) Performance Indicators for Higher Education: A critical review with

policy recommendations. In Salmi, J. and Verspoor A.M.(ed.): Revitalizing Higher

Education, Pergamon, pp. 174-208.

Kirby, D.A. (2002). Entrepreneurship. Maidenhead: Mcgraw-Hill.


28

Kirby, D.A. (2006). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK: Applying

entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599-603.

Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in

Europe-The Case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299-310.

Kogan, M. (1999). Academic and administrative interface. In Henkel, M. and Little, B.

(eds.), Changing Relationships between Higher Education and the State, Jessica

Kingsley Publishers, London, pp. 263-279.

Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I. and Henkel, M. (2000). Transforming Higher

Education: A Comparative Study, London, Jessica Kingsley.

Kogan, M. and Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming Higher Education, London: Jessica

Kingsley.

Levin, S.L. (1998) Organizational change and the community college. In J.S. Levin

(ed.) Organizational change in the community college: A ripple or a sea change?

New directions for community colleges, 102, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers, pp. 1-4,

Lindsay, A. (1995). Collegiality and Managerialism: What is the Place of Leadership in

Higher Education? Professorial Inaugural Lecture, Sydney: Macquarie University.

Liñán, F., and Chen, Y.-W. (2006). Testing the entrepreneurial intention model on a

two-country sample. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Departament d'Economia

de l'Empresa(Working Paper 06/07).

Michael, S.O. and Holdaway, E.A. (1992). Entrepreneurial activities in postsecondary

education. Higher Education, 22(2), 15-40.

Mok, K.H. (2005). Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of government and higher

education governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy, 34, 537-554.


29

Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A. and Duran, X. (2002). Measuring Third

Stream Activities. Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities. Brighton:

Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), University of Sussex. Freeman

Centre, Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9QE, United Kingdom.

Mora, J. G. (2001). Governance and Management in the New University. Tertiary

Education and Management, 7, 95–110.

North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance.

Cambridge: University Press.

North, D.C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton:

University Press.

OECD (1999). The response of higher education institutions to regional needs, Paris.

OECD (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged,

Paris.

Röpke, J. (1998). The Entrepreneurial University, Innovation, academic knowledge

creation and regional development in a globalized economy. Working Paper

Department of Economics, Philipps- Universität Marburg, Germany: 15.

Ruiz, J., Parellada, F.S. and Vecina, J.M. (2004). Creación de Empresas y Universidad.

Spain: Fundación Universidad Empresa de la Provincia de Cádiz.

Ryan, G.J. (1989). Reasons for Success. In Catanzaro, J.L., Arnold, A.D. (eds.)

Alternative funding sources. New directions for community colleges, 68, San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 1-4.

Sanyal, B.C. (1995). Innovations in University Management, UNESCO Publishing,

Paris, France.

Schulte, P. (2004). The Entrepreneurial University: A Strategy for Institutional

Development. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), 187-191.


30

Shattock, M. (ed) (2008). Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge

Economy. Diversification and Organisational Change in European Higher

Education. University of London.

Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the

entrepreneurial university, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive University Structures: An Analysis of Adaptation to

Socioeconomic Environment of US and European Universities, London: Jessica

Kingsley.

Sporn, B. (2001). Building Adaptive Universities: Emerging Organisational Forms

Based on Experiences of European and US Universities. Tertiary Education and

Management, 7(2), 121-134.

Subotzky, G. (1999). Alternatives to the Entrepreneurial University: New Modes of

Knowledge Production in Community Service Programs. Higher Education, 38(4),

401-440.

Teichler, U. (1996). The changing nature of higher education in Western Europe.

Higher Education Policy, 9(2), 89-111.

Toledano, Nuria. (2006). Las perspectivas empresariales de los estudiantes

universitarios: un estudio empírico. Revista de Educación, 34, 803-825

Urbano, D. (2006). New Businesss creation in Catalonia: support measures and

attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.

Uyarra, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the Regional Roles of Universities, Implications and

Contradictions. European Planning Studies, 18(8), 1227-1246.

Van Vught, F. (2000) Innovative universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 5,

347-354.


31

Veciana, J.M., Aponte, M. and Urbano, D. (2005). University attitudes to

entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Management, 1(2), 165-182.

Villarreal, E. (2001). Innovation, Organisation and Governance in Spanish Universities.

Tertiary Education and Management, 7, 181–195.

Williams, G. (2003). The Enterprising University: Reform, Excellence and Equity.

Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University

Press.

World Bank (2002). Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary

Education. A World Bank Report, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Zhao, F. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship: Case study of Australian Universities.

The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 91-97.

what might an entrepreneurial university constitute?digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/107944/1/what...

Documents